Questioners: The Invisible Culprit of Controversial Answers

President Joe Biden held a news conference on November 15, 2023, in which a reporter asked him if he still thought Xi Jinping, the President of the People’s Republic of China, was a dictator. Biden responded by saying “Yyes” and elaborating that Xi runs a “communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours.”

Biden’s statement has caused worry within the media, as many believed it could result in the same tension created when Biden called Xi a dictator back in June of this year. During that incident, China responded by saying that his rhetoric was “provocation,” making it clear to some that Biden was indirectly threatening China with his remarks. This time, the story remains the same, as China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson has called the statement “extremely wrong” and “irresponsible political manipulation.” Furthermore, the current context is much worse than before, as many articles discussing Biden’s statement directly contrast the political atmosphere with the few summit meetings that Xi and Biden had conducted previously, subtly portraying the negative diplomatic consequences of that statement. Some publications are more explicit with this message, stating that this comment could, to some extent, reverse the heavily needed positive diplomatic progress that has been made between the two world leaders. It’s obvious that many members of the public are painting Biden as the only culprit here, but that’s not entirely true. Could Biden have stated a more tactful response? Sure. However, what many fail to realize is that this question, along with many other questions addressed to politicians, was doomed from the start.

Had Biden said no, many would criticize him for not speaking up against Xi’s dictatorial actions, including the attempted genocide of the Uyghur population and increased mass surveillance through major data collection efforts and heavy internet policing. On the other hand, if he had dodged the question, many would call him out for being incompetent and unable to answer questions, which has occurred in the past. Biden has already been dubbed “Sleepy Joe” by former President Donald Trump and the rest of the Republican party, so silence on an issue as prominent as China wouldn’t be a good look for him. This fated disaster is exactly what these reporters and media organizations want: a reaction from the public. They ask questions that they’ll be able to stir the pot with, no matter the answer.

Despite the existence of these sneaky tactics that journalists and the media utilize to get a controversial response out of politicians, it seems as if citizens remain unaware. According to a Pew Research Center report on made-up news and information from 2019, people continue to believe that the news and journalists are relatively truthful. Fifty-three percent of adults trust the news media to reduce made-up news and information, and in comparison to politicians and activist groups, journalists are seen as minuscule culprits in the spread of misinformation. 

In such a polarized nation, it is easy to see how citizens often blame politicians rather than journalists or the media. If a major figure from one of the two central political parties slips up in a press conference, it will be in the opposing party’s best interest to milk the statement for all its worth, and no one will care enough to even take a look at the original question and open the possibility that the journalist asked the question in bad faith. In the aforementioned example involving Biden, not a single article that I found even addressed the glaring issue with the original question. It either concerned China’s reaction to the statement or the content of the statement itself. 

With politicians facing extreme media pressure nowadays, they consequently might have to use nuance in their answers instead of simply stating “yes” or “no.” Some may characterize this as improperly answering the question or dodging it, and while politicians are definitely capable of being evasive, we shouldn’t be too quick to judge. The most common example in which a politician would need to use a nuanced answer is when they are asked a loaded question, which is a question that assumes a controversial premise that is not necessarily true. Giving a yes or no answer is equivalent to admitting that the premise is true.

Another situation in which a yes or no answer may be difficult to give is when there is a hidden implication of the answer as a result of the previous questions. An example of this happening recently is in the recent congressional hearing with some university presidents. There has been extreme backlash at the following interaction: Representative Elise Stefanik asked the President of the University of Pennsylvania Liz Magill, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your school’s code of conduct?“ Liz Magill responded, “It is a context-dependent decision.” When MIT President Sally Kornbluth was asked the same question, she stated that such language would only be “investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.” These statements have many calling for their resignation, but there’s more to the story here. 

When looking at the entire hearing, you can see that Stefanik’s use of the phrase “calling for the genocide of Jews” was referencing the use of the word “intifada” and the slogan “From the river to the sea.” Though this was not explicitly stated in the question, looking at her previous questions makes it clear. These phrases aren’t always said with the intention of genocide, though, which is why these presidents gave the answers they did. This was a masterful trap that Stefanik had laid out, and the clip of only that one question and subsequent answers going viral without context—along with the pushback it created—proved the tactic successful. These little sound bites are so effective because many are extremely susceptible to accepting them at face value without much thought. In fact, about one in five adults claim that they receive their political news through social media. 

A third reason why a yes or no answer may not be sufficient is that there might be additional assumptions made with such a short answer. Take two people who oppose a corporate and graduated income tax; they’re not always necessarily aligned ideologically. One of them can oppose it because they don’t believe reducing the income gap is a pressing issue, while another could oppose it because they don’t believe it will have a significant impact on income inequality as, after all, corporations and extremely affluent people could find methods to avoid it. Instead, they may want to focus on policy that attempts to stop or limit tax evasion. This situation demonstrates the variety of stances and the importance of being nuanced, as giving a direct yes or no answer may result in people associating a politician with a certain rationale, even if they don’t hold it. 

Living in a world where the media is always baiting for clicks and engagement while the public is frequently susceptible to immediately validating these answers results in a powerful combination that can lead to misinformation and corruption within politics and journalism. So, instead of immediately being critical of people in power not giving the “right answers,” we should be more aware of the motives of those asking them. We should ask ourselves: “Was it a loaded question?” or “Did the question have any satisfactory answer?” Moreover, whenever people come across excerpts of an interview being used in an article or on social media, they should always observe the full interview to see if there’s any context they’re missing. Finally, social media platforms and news organizations should expand their current commitment to fact-checking for essential missing context. By doing all of these things, those asking disingenuous questions won’t be able to stay out of the spotlight of blame for much longer.